Canadian and US Amalgamation

[Taliesin]

Of course he's fully bilingual... it's a requirement for being PM.

You know that and I know that. But some people from other countries might not.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

As you can see, the G-G represents a formidable check on the PM's power, though her power would be exercised only in drastic circumstances. I therefore support the monarchy. For example, the G-G's intervention is about the only thing that could legally stop a popular fascist Prime Minister, if he held a majority and could enforce his will on his MPs.

Even so, having the G-G who is appointed by the queen is ridiculous; that isn't the people's voice (nor is the Electoral College in the US, but that's another story). Further, doesn't the G-G rarely exercise her (it is a female right now, no?) power in the first place?

 

[Taliesin]

Someone told me recently that there in a poll something like 80% of Americans thought we should annex Canada. I find fault with that through. As I doubt 80% of Americans know where Canada is.

Can you blame them when their Commander-in-Chief says things like

Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better.

and

Over 50 percent of our energy comes from overseas. Fortunately, a lot of it comes from Canada.

 

[Taliesin]

Even so, having the G-G who is appointed by the queen is ridiculous; that isn't the people's voice (nor is the Electoral College in the US, but that's another story). Further, doesn't the G-G rarely exercise her (it is a female right now, no?) power in the first place?

Well, you're right that she's not exactly the people's voice, but she does have some moderating influence. Not much, especially for minor grievances, since the PM is the one who picks the G-G in the first place (though the Queen's assent is required). However, I think that the Queen and her representative would protect us from major abuses committed by the Prime Minister.
The biggest problem is that we still use a two-party voting system, despite having 5 viable parties. If we switched to proportional representation, the chances of PM abuse would be negligible except in extremely serious cases, and then the G-G would step in. Curiously, Alberta is one of the strongest voices speaking out against PR... I wonder why?

 

[MarineCorps]

Can you blame them when their Commander-in-Chief says things like
and

Those are quite funny.

Americans are by and large quite dumb when it comes to geography. It's sad really.

 

[Babbler]

As you can see, the G-G represents a formidable check on the PM's power, though her power would be exercised only in drastic circumstances. I therefore support the monarchy. For example, the G-G's intervention is about the only thing that could legally stop a popular fascist Prime Minister, if he held a majority and could enforce his will on his MPs.

Many republics work like Canada or the UK, only with a President instead of monarch. And a doubt a "popular fascist Prime Minister" could be stopped by any figurehead chief of state, President or monarch.

Even so, having the G-G who is appointed by the queen is ridiculous; that isn't the people's voice (nor is the Electoral College in the US, but that's another story). Further, doesn't the G-G rarely exercise her (it is a female right now, no?) power in the first place?

Yes, it is a female now, our Governor General is Adrienne Clarkson. She taken some flack for lavish spending habits.

 

[Babbler]

Americans are by and large quite dumb when it comes to geography. It's sad really.

I suppect Canadians and Europeans guilty of the same crime. Still sad thought.

 

[Taliesin]

Many republics work like Canada or the UK, only with a President instead of monarch. And a doubt a "popular fascist Prime Minister" could be stopped by any figurehead chief of state, President or monarch.

Even if we were to replace our monarch with a President, I would want the office to be pretty much identical to the G-G's, except elected for eight-year terms. Or possibly an elected monarch-for-life, as I believe is the case in the Netherlands. I don't want the PM to lose his position as de facto head of state.
And you're right about the possibility of such a PM elbowing past the head of state-- Hitler bullied his way past his conservative Chancellor-- but at least the office presents a legal roadblock.

Yes, it is a female now, our Governor General is Adrienne Clarkson. She taken some flack for lavish spending habits.

Personally, I think those criticisms are false populist BS. Her activities are worthy of her office, in my opinion, and if we spend a relatively small amount of money to foster ties with other Northern countries, let's not call it a waste. There are much more important things to worry about-- to quibble over a few million dollars is to ignore big problems to focus on a minuscule one.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

Those are quite funny.

Americans are by and large quite dumb when it comes to geography. It's sad really.

I'm hard hit to admit it too; I know people who don't know that England/UK is on an Island; Some statistic states that 58% of Americans can't find Japan on an unmarked map

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Such a thing should and will never happen.

The French-Canadians could easily be bought off with promises of greater autonomy, perhaps a Common-Wealth status similar to Puerto Rico. They could very quickly become the most pro-American of all, sort of like the Kurds in Iraq.

Doubtful. Despite the fact that we share many values with the rest of Canada (social freedom combined with government intervention in economy), sovereignety still has the support of more than 40% of the population, IIRC. It's a matter of language and culture, too. So, no, we're not for sale!
However, such an union would certainly drag the US to the left. Maybe, then, (English) Canadians could support living in the US.

How do we call people from Quebec in English ? Quebecker ? Quebecois seems so weird.

In English, we are indeed Quebeckers.

 

[Mr.Communist]

I am going to give my two cents here.


Before I start, got to say I am a Quebecer (you got your answer there MArla). I speak proudly french and english.

I know alot about Canada's Politics, and also Quebec's politics.

I am not going to talk about "seperation" or anything else like that, but a merge with with the U.S would be bad for Canada, since they wouldn't be strong enough to make their voice heard at the White House.

Just think about it for a second or two.

The U.S.A is a country much more powerful than Canada (duh), but also their is a significant between the number of population between the two country.

The USA has 293,027,571 people living in their border in July, 2004.
Canada has like 30 millions people. Quebec has 7,5 millions people, with about (I would say, very rough estimate here) 6 millions "French-Canadians".

If one day, these two country would merge, Canada influence (political) would be very-low, extremely low. Quebec's influence over "this newly-formed" country would also be low, much lower than Canada's. If there is one thing that French Canadians (living in Quebec) want, is more Independence, not less. The same trend would appear in the rest of Canada (perhaps least on the Western Part, but I don't have a clue).

I always think that more unity is the path to peace, but since it's not a perfect world....

Edit:

In English, we are indeed Quebeckers.

That's an other way to spell it, Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Re: the English term, I have never heard anything other than "French-Canadian" used as an adjective for something or somebody from Quebec. Quebecker must be a solely Canadian thing.

 

[De Lorimier]

I, like others in Québec, don't call myself Canadian or French-Canadian (wich meant second-class citizen for years and still does in some areas).

I really dislike the term French-Canadians applied to Quebecer as it reduces the identity of my people to language when a lot of people here don't even have french as their first language. I live in Québec, am I a Quebecer.

 

[Mr.Communist]

Re: the English term, I have never heard anything other than "French-Canadian" used as an adjective for something or somebody from Quebec. Quebecker must be a solely Canadian thing.

Well, here's on how I see it.

French-Canadian: Someone that speaks french, and lives in Canada.
Quebecer: Someone that lives in Quebec.

There are French-Canadian living outside of Quebec, in Manitoba, or in the Atlantic Province. New Brunswick (a province east of Quebec) has a large proportion of French speaking people. I also think they have 2 primary language, English and French (not sure thought).

It's like saying a "New-Yorker", it's someone that lives in New-York, well a Quebecer is someone that live in Quebec, simple as that.

 

[Perfection]

Nah, them Canadians wouldn't support it.

I wouldn't mind a unified currancy as that would probobly provide considerable benefits on both sides, but the mere thought of the English monarch on American currancy would probobly rule that out.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I would not support it, I'd rather have the Mexicans join in anyday.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I, like others in Québec, don't call myself Canadian or French-Canadian (wich meant second-class citizen for years and still does in some areas).
.

Yes, what with all that federal bribe money pumped into Quebec whilst leaving other provinces out to cold with far less than their fair share....such second class citizens you are! But hey, only the majority of Quebec disagrees with you, otherwise you wouldn't still be in Canada.

I never saw British Columbians, Manitobans, or Nova Scotians bombing cities and killing government officials. Maybe before you start wailing about Quebec identity remember that Quebecers have resorted to terrorism in the past.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I never saw British Columbians, Manitobans, or Nova Scotians bombing cities and killing government officials. Maybe before you start wailing about Quebec identity remember that Quebecers have resorted to violence in the past.

if such a union came about, I would make Osama bin Laden look like Mother Theresa.

Hrm. Seems like they're just taking a page from your book.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Hrm. Seems like they're just taking a page from your book.

Not really. Quebec is given a disproportionately large voice within Canada. Quebec isn't even a nationality, and has never been a nation. They were a colony of France, then England, and now are a part of a democracy.

Joined with the United States, Canada would have no voice, and would be used and abused. Quebec is neither used nor abused.

Your analogy is false.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

I would not support it, I'd rather have the Mexicans join in anyday.

Mexico would be such an economic drain ont he US that it would kill us; besides the cultural similarites between the US and Canada are much larger than the similarities between Mexico and the US